Is it possible for an explanation to be both true and unscientific, at the same time??

I recently was in a discussion with someone about the meaning of science. He held the position that science can be divorced from both knowledge and truth. He held that the scientific position is the one that can make predictions and further our understanding of the universe.

The obvious response to that position would seem to be that if his science can be divorced from both truth and knowledge, then it is of no value, it is meaningless. Of what value is an explanation, or understanding about the universe, if that understanding has no truth value. I understand and agree that science can't deal in "absolute truths", it has to remain open to evidence, but to say that it can be divorced from both knowledge and truth is nonsensical.

Has science evolved to a point where it is philosophically possible for a true answer to be considered unscientific??

I had a debate about the scientific method being the only way to truth. It is not. Science makes predictions and formula's but often those formulas are only accurate within a certain range of scope, speed, mass.

There are many things that are true and not scientific. Take for instance brain scans to try and read peoples thoughts. So many people see the same image or answer the same questions. Sometimes a general pathway or area will activate but it is not solidly true.

Science is a source of knowledge by inductive reasoning from repeatable experiments or observations.

If something is true that is not repeatable experiment or observation then it is unscientific.

There can be parts that are scientific like general rules of attraction between 2 people, but does that mean the love 2 people share is scientific. No the love is not. Does that mean the love is not true. No that is not indicative either.

1. Tautology. Some things are true by definition. There is a longstanding question of whether mathematics is true by definition or not.

2. Self-evident truth. The identity A=A and basic logic are taken as self-evident. Some claims of "self-evident" are actually scientific, where the meaning is that they are observed as true. "We hold these truths to be self-evident ..." is a reference to observation.

3. Guess correctly. If you believe without knowledge that the bus leaves at noon, and it turns out that in fact it leaves at noon, then you had a true belief. Many beliefs are true but either not proved or not provable.

Note that scientific truth is not absolute. Science depends upon observation, so a "law of nature" is only true insofar as it has been observed.

People are reluctant to leave anything important as "unknown." I think there is a human instinct to demand a theory for everything that happens, rather than leaving things unknown. Hence a "best" explanation may be a poor one.

Some good points made so far, which leads to a follow-up question. Would it not be more factually accurate then to say that something is "outside the bounds of science", or that "science is unable to address that", rather than saying something is "unscientific" unless it can indeed be falsified scientifically?? To most people who don't give it much thought, the word unscientific carries with it the implication that it is necessarily false.

At 5/13/2014 5:51:25 AM, medic0506 wrote:Some good points made so far, which leads to a follow-up question. Would it not be more factually accurate then to say that something is "outside the bounds of science", or that "science is unable to address that", rather than saying something is "unscientific" unless it can indeed be falsified scientifically?? To most people who don't give it much thought, the word unscientific carries with it the implication that it is necessarily false.

I think it depends upon the specific claim as to whether it is "unscientific" or not. The claim "The world was created one week ago along with all evidence of an older earth." is unscientific, because it denies the consistency of the laws of nature in a way that science asserts. Miracles in general are unscientific if they are posed not just as unexplained rare events but as exceptions to the laws of nature.

However, I think some concepts of God, like the Deist concept, are outside of science because they cannot be proved or disproved. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory because it cannot be disproved; ID claims to explain all cases not positively proved to be examples of evolution. Some critics of String Theory say it is not a scientific theory because it cannot be disproved, but defenders say the Theory makes specific predictions that could be shown false.

At 5/13/2014 5:51:25 AM, medic0506 wrote:Some good points made so far, which leads to a follow-up question. Would it not be more factually accurate then to say that something is "outside the bounds of science", or that "science is unable to address that", rather than saying something is "unscientific" unless it can indeed be falsified scientifically?? To most people who don't give it much thought, the word unscientific carries with it the implication that it is necessarily false.

I think it depends upon the specific claim as to whether it is "unscientific" or not. The claim "The world was created one week ago along with all evidence of an older earth." is unscientific, because it denies the consistency of the laws of nature in a way that science asserts. Miracles in general are unscientific if they are posed not just as unexplained rare events but as exceptions to the laws of nature.

However, I think some concepts of God, like the Deist concept, are outside of science because they cannot be proved or disproved. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory because it cannot be disproved; ID claims to explain all cases not positively proved to be examples of evolution. Some critics of String Theory say it is not a scientific theory because it cannot be disproved, but defenders say the Theory makes specific predictions that could be shown false.

If a deistic God (impersonal, uninvolved) created the the world billions of years ago, would that be a miracle?

Some good points made so far, which leads to a follow-up question. Would it not be more factually accurate then to say that something is "outside the bounds of science", or that "science is unable to address that", rather than saying something is "unscientific" unless it can indeed be falsified scientifically?? To most people who don't give it much thought, the word unscientific carries with it the implication that it is necessarily false.

I think it depends upon the specific claim as to whether it is "unscientific" or not.

Then you're introducing subjectivity. Who gets to decide what it depends on, and what criteria will be used to decide??

I think, from a philosophical standpoint, if you're going to say that truth can be unscientific then that has to apply equally to all possible truths, otherwise science is nothing more than a matter of opinion.

The claim "The world was created one week ago along with all evidence of an older earth." is unscientific, because it denies the consistency of the laws of nature in a way that science asserts. Miracles in general are unscientific if they are posed not just as unexplained rare events but as exceptions to the laws of nature.

If the world was indeed created one week ago, the laws of nature would not have existed. They would only exist afterwards, as a part of that creation. To say that the creation itself, and the Creator, were obliged to follow laws that were not yet in existence, and were put into place, by the Creator, to guide the creation after it came into existence, is logically absurd.

It's wrong to say that the claim is unscientific because materialistic science, using known laws and processes, cannot address it. Science can neither prove or disprove that claim, so it is outside the scope of science.

However, I think some concepts of God, like the Deist concept, are outside of science because they cannot be proved or disproved. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory because it cannot be disproved; ID claims to explain all cases not positively proved to be examples of evolution. Some critics of String Theory say it is not a scientific theory because it cannot be disproved, but defenders say the Theory makes specific predictions that could be shown false.

Some good points made so far, which leads to a follow-up question. Would it not be more factually accurate then to say that something is "outside the bounds of science", or that "science is unable to address that", rather than saying something is "unscientific" unless it can indeed be falsified scientifically?? To most people who don't give it much thought, the word unscientific carries with it the implication that it is necessarily false.

I think it depends upon the specific claim as to whether it is "unscientific" or not.

Then you're introducing subjectivity. Who gets to decide what it depends on, and what criteria will be used to decide??

I think, from a philosophical standpoint, if you're going to say that truth can be unscientific then that has to apply equally to all possible truths, otherwise science is nothing more than a matter of opinion.

The claim "The world was created one week ago along with all evidence of an older earth." is unscientific, because it denies the consistency of the laws of nature in a way that science asserts. Miracles in general are unscientific if they are posed not just as unexplained rare events but as exceptions to the laws of nature.

If the world was indeed created one week ago, the laws of nature would not have existed. They would only exist afterwards, as a part of that creation. To say that the creation itself, and the Creator, were obliged to follow laws that were not yet in existence, and were put into place, by the Creator, to guide the creation after it came into existence, is logically absurd.

It's wrong to say that the claim is unscientific because materialistic science, using known laws and processes, cannot address it. Science can neither prove or disprove that claim, so it is outside the scope of science.

However, I think some concepts of God, like the Deist concept, are outside of science because they cannot be proved or disproved. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory because it cannot be disproved; ID claims to explain all cases not positively proved to be examples of evolution. Some critics of String Theory say it is not a scientific theory because it cannot be disproved, but defenders say the Theory makes specific predictions that could be shown false.

Science is a man made tool like math. Experiments are actually done on models of reality. An experiment is conducted in way to eliminate variables. This is not reality. Science is built on the induction of rules from repeatable observations.

Inferred Design is scientific because it establishes rules for what is designed based on repeatable observations.

Sometimes observations come along to throw old science out. New ideas are always rejected at first till they hold up under repetition and observation.

I agree calling something unscientific is a way to discredit but not really address how it is unscientific.

Essentially there are many things, day to day, and big questions that we accept as true without science. Like taking your car to a mechanic. s/he says it is the spark plugs. You accept this as truth on the fallacy of authority. Does it make it wrong? No. Does it make it plausible? Yes!

When confronted with a question or scenario that is not constrained by the universal axioms of science, repetition, and observation then I would say that is outside the bounds of science. Maybe in the bonds of logic, social norms, etc...

I think it depends upon the specific claim as to whether it is "unscientific" or not.

Then you're introducing subjectivity. Who gets to decide what it depends on, and what criteria will be used to decide??

The criteria is whether the proposed explanation can be formulated as a law of nature and tested to determine whether or not it is true. Anyone can offer an opinion as to whether the criteria has been met, and like most questions there is no Grand Arbiter who pronounces truth.

I think, from a philosophical standpoint, if you're going to say that truth can be unscientific then that has to apply equally to all possible truths, otherwise science is nothing more than a matter of opinion.

I gave examples of things that are true, but not scientifically provable. Probably the most interesting one is truth by a lucky guess. Because many things are unknown, it's possible to make a guess without a good reason and have it be true. There's no way to tell if it's true unless later on it's proved. String theory is a good example; it seems to agree with every known fact about subatomic physics, but some say it makes no testable predictions.

If the world was indeed created one week ago, the laws of nature would not have existed. They would only exist afterwards, as a part of that creation. To say that the creation itself, and the Creator, were obliged to follow laws that were not yet in existence, and were put into place, by the Creator, to guide the creation after it came into existence, is logically absurd.

Agreed. The Creator is not bound by laws of nature either at the time of creation or at any other time; He performs magic. A scientific explanation of creation requires a formulation in terms of natural laws which might be observable in the experiments or in observations of the cosmos. If there is no proof, then the question remains unresolved. That is was distinguishes science from non-science. By it's nature, there is no way to prove that magic never happens.

At 5/16/2014 6:03:49 AM, slo1 wrote:Scientific versus unscientific is purely dealing with the method of discovery. I thing when one uses unscientific in terms of a discovery there is an implied greater risk of an error.

When it comes to truth there are four states.

1. What is believed to be true is true.2. What is believed to be untrue is untrue.3. What is believed to be true is untrue.4. What is believed to be untrue is true.

3 and 4 are the type one and type two errors. When we say that something is scientific it goes through certain rigors to minimize the risk of type one and type two errors.

Of it is not perfect, but when searching for truths, while it is not the only method to uncover truths, but it is the best method to minimize the errors mentioned above.

So again while a discovery can be made with unscientific processes, it is generally a higher risk to be a type one or type two error.

Actually science from the start assumes things as not true. So science has a whole of knowledge commits one error constantly.

I think it depends upon the specific claim as to whether it is "unscientific" or not.

Then you're introducing subjectivity. Who gets to decide what it depends on, and what criteria will be used to decide??

The criteria is whether the proposed explanation can be formulated as a law of nature and tested to determine whether or not it is true.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that the logical extension of what you're saying here is that origins is ultimately going to have to be outside the scope of materialistic science.

A "law" of nature can't exist until after nature itself has come into existence, so how can any law be formulated, to explain the origin of the universe, which is, by definition, "natural"??

Anyone can offer an opinion as to whether the criteria has been met, and like most questions there is no Grand Arbiter who pronounces truth.

I agree there is no Grand Arbiter in science, but empiricism and objectivity is suppose to act as a stand-in. We would both probably agree that empiricism and objectivity are even better than having a Grand Arbiter because, in such a system, nothing is ever based solely on one person's judgment. That is why science works so well and there is rarely dispute, that can't be resolved, when science sticks to empirical, objective, testable, and falsifiable ideas and principles. It's when we get into hypotheticals and theoretical "science", that we run into problems.

I think, from a philosophical standpoint, if you're going to say that truth can be unscientific then that has to apply equally to all possible truths, otherwise science is nothing more than a matter of opinion.

I gave examples of things that are true, but not scientifically provable. Probably the most interesting one is truth by a lucky guess. Because many things are unknown, it's possible to make a guess without a good reason and have it be true.

The thing is though, once you know that something is true, as in the case of ID, you can work with that knowledge to know how to interpret the data and be confident about it, as you work your way up.

If you can know that something is true, yet are unable to make predictions from that knowledge, then would those predictions have been of any value to you anyway?? And how much value do the predictions add, if you still end up with the wrong conclusion??

There's no way to tell if it's true unless later on it's proved. String theory is a good example; it seems to agree with every known fact about subatomic physics, but some say it makes no testable predictions.

I'm not defending string theory here but I guess the same principle would apply. Some people say that YEC makes no testable predictions. I disagree, but even if they were right, it has no effect on its truth value.

If the world was indeed created one week ago, the laws of nature would not have existed. They would only exist afterwards, as a part of that creation. To say that the creation itself, and the Creator, were obliged to follow laws that were not yet in existence, and were put into place, by the Creator, to guide the creation after it came into existence, is logically absurd.

Agreed. The Creator is not bound by laws of nature either at the time of creation or at any other time; He performs magic. A scientific explanation of creation requires a formulation in terms of natural laws which might be observable in the experiments or in observations of the cosmos. If there is no proof, then the question remains unresolved. That is was distinguishes science from non-science. By it's nature, there is no way to prove that magic never happens.

With magic though, we know that it's an illusion and there are humans who do indeed know how the act was performed, so an omnipotent Creator interacting with His creation isn't magic. From our perspective, as observers of natural laws and phenomena, a miracle appears to be a suspension of natural laws, but it's really God revealing some aspect of His nature.

At 5/16/2014 6:03:49 AM, slo1 wrote:Scientific versus unscientific is purely dealing with the method of discovery. I thing when one uses unscientific in terms of a discovery there is an implied greater risk of an error.

When it comes to truth there are four states.

1. What is believed to be true is true.2. What is believed to be untrue is untrue.3. What is believed to be true is untrue.4. What is believed to be untrue is true.

3 and 4 are the type one and type two errors. When we say that something is scientific it goes through certain rigors to minimize the risk of type one and type two errors.

Of it is not perfect, but when searching for truths, while it is not the only method to uncover truths, but it is the best method to minimize the errors mentioned above.

So again while a discovery can be made with unscientific processes, it is generally a higher risk to be a type one or type two error.

Actually science from the start assumes things as not true. So science has a whole of knowledge commits one error constantly.

LOL, that is funny.

That is why science creates a hypothesis that may or may not be true. Once it is empirically tested if the data does not fit the hypothesis the hypothesis is reworked or abandoned.

I think you are referring to a reluctance to believe in ideas which can not be empirically tested. It is right to be highly skeptical of beliefs and hypothesis that can not be tested because they are very error prone.

At 5/16/2014 6:03:49 AM, slo1 wrote:Scientific versus unscientific is purely dealing with the method of discovery. I thing when one uses unscientific in terms of a discovery there is an implied greater risk of an error.

When it comes to truth there are four states.

1. What is believed to be true is true.2. What is believed to be untrue is untrue.3. What is believed to be true is untrue.4. What is believed to be untrue is true.

3 and 4 are the type one and type two errors. When we say that something is scientific it goes through certain rigors to minimize the risk of type one and type two errors.

Of it is not perfect, but when searching for truths, while it is not the only method to uncover truths, but it is the best method to minimize the errors mentioned above.

So again while a discovery can be made with unscientific processes, it is generally a higher risk to be a type one or type two error.

Actually science from the start assumes things as not true. So science has a whole of knowledge commits one error constantly.

LOL, that is funny.

That is why science creates a hypothesis that may or may not be true. Once it is empirically tested if the data does not fit the hypothesis the hypothesis is reworked or abandoned.

I think you are referring to a reluctance to believe in ideas which can not be empirically tested. It is right to be highly skeptical of beliefs and hypothesis that can not be tested because they are very error prone.

Science is not the real world. It's experiments are models of the real world, with as many variables removed as possible. This is in fact why the experimenter denies the existence of God. because the experimenter can not account for the will of such a variable.

Hence why also the tests are duplicated. But there are a 1000 more things in this life that can not be empirically tested.

you and I, and the whole of society, go through this life mostly making educated guesses.

At 5/16/2014 6:03:49 AM, slo1 wrote:Scientific versus unscientific is purely dealing with the method of discovery. I thing when one uses unscientific in terms of a discovery there is an implied greater risk of an error.

When it comes to truth there are four states.

1. What is believed to be true is true.2. What is believed to be untrue is untrue.3. What is believed to be true is untrue.4. What is believed to be untrue is true.

3 and 4 are the type one and type two errors. When we say that something is scientific it goes through certain rigors to minimize the risk of type one and type two errors.

Of it is not perfect, but when searching for truths, while it is not the only method to uncover truths, but it is the best method to minimize the errors mentioned above.

So again while a discovery can be made with unscientific processes, it is generally a higher risk to be a type one or type two error.

Actually science from the start assumes things as not true. So science has a whole of knowledge commits one error constantly.

LOL, that is funny.

That is why science creates a hypothesis that may or may not be true. Once it is empirically tested if the data does not fit the hypothesis the hypothesis is reworked or abandoned.

I think you are referring to a reluctance to believe in ideas which can not be empirically tested. It is right to be highly skeptical of beliefs and hypothesis that can not be tested because they are very error prone.

Science is not the real world. It's experiments are models of the real world, with as many variables removed as possible. This is in fact why the experimenter denies the existence of God. because the experimenter can not account for the will of such a variable.

Hence why also the tests are duplicated. But there are a 1000 more things in this life that can not be empirically tested.

you and I, and the whole of society, go through this life mostly making educated guesses.

wrong again. There are plenty of scientists who use the scientific method who believe in God. You are mixing opinion with the scientific process. The scientific process does not concern itself with God because there is no way to test whether God exists or even which interpretation of God is more accurate than another, etc.

That does not mean that people only use the scientific process to formulate opinion and belief. You need to go back and understand why the scientific process exists. It exists to minimize type one an type two errors. It is not perfect, but is the best method to eliminate those types of errors.

If you go into areas which can not be empirically tested, such as God that is why there is a million and 1 beliefs about God, many of which can not be both true at the same time. If there was a method to test, say, whether God is vengeful or loving or which degree between the two, then it would be very appropriate to use the scientific method to approach answering that question. It obviously can not be measured, other than people's opinion on the matter.

At 5/16/2014 6:03:49 AM, slo1 wrote:Scientific versus unscientific is purely dealing with the method of discovery. I thing when one uses unscientific in terms of a discovery there is an implied greater risk of an error.

When it comes to truth there are four states.

1. What is believed to be true is true.2. What is believed to be untrue is untrue.3. What is believed to be true is untrue.4. What is believed to be untrue is true.

3 and 4 are the type one and type two errors. When we say that something is scientific it goes through certain rigors to minimize the risk of type one and type two errors.

Of it is not perfect, but when searching for truths, while it is not the only method to uncover truths, but it is the best method to minimize the errors mentioned above.

So again while a discovery can be made with unscientific processes, it is generally a higher risk to be a type one or type two error.

Actually science from the start assumes things as not true. So science has a whole of knowledge commits one error constantly.

LOL, that is funny.

That is why science creates a hypothesis that may or may not be true. Once it is empirically tested if the data does not fit the hypothesis the hypothesis is reworked or abandoned.

I think you are referring to a reluctance to believe in ideas which can not be empirically tested. It is right to be highly skeptical of beliefs and hypothesis that can not be tested because they are very error prone.

Science is not the real world. It's experiments are models of the real world, with as many variables removed as possible. This is in fact why the experimenter denies the existence of God. because the experimenter can not account for the will of such a variable.

Hence why also the tests are duplicated. But there are a 1000 more things in this life that can not be empirically tested.

you and I, and the whole of society, go through this life mostly making educated guesses.

wrong again. There are plenty of scientists who use the scientific method who believe in God. You are mixing opinion with the scientific process. The scientific process does not concern itself with God because there is no way to test whether God exists or even which interpretation of God is more accurate than another, etc.

That does not mean that people only use the scientific process to formulate opinion and belief. You need to go back and understand why the scientific process exists. It exists to minimize type one an type two errors. It is not perfect, but is the best method to eliminate those types of errors.

If you go into areas which can not be empirically tested, such as God that is why there is a million and 1 beliefs about God, many of which can not be both true at the same time. If there was a method to test, say, whether God is vengeful or loving or which degree between the two, then it would be very appropriate to use the scientific method to approach answering that question. It obviously can not be measured, other than people's opinion on the matter.

Even if the scientist believes in God he does not conduct his experiment as if there is a chance God will mess with the results. Experiments are conducted in a way that there is no god.

And must people go through life making educated guesses for day to day living and beliefs. They do not really on the scientific method for 99% of their choices. They have a decision making process that is different then the empirical method.

At 5/16/2014 6:03:49 AM, slo1 wrote:Scientific versus unscientific is purely dealing with the method of discovery. I thing when one uses unscientific in terms of a discovery there is an implied greater risk of an error.

When it comes to truth there are four states.

1. What is believed to be true is true.2. What is believed to be untrue is untrue.3. What is believed to be true is untrue.4. What is believed to be untrue is true.

3 and 4 are the type one and type two errors. When we say that something is scientific it goes through certain rigors to minimize the risk of type one and type two errors.

Of it is not perfect, but when searching for truths, while it is not the only method to uncover truths, but it is the best method to minimize the errors mentioned above.

So again while a discovery can be made with unscientific processes, it is generally a higher risk to be a type one or type two error.

Actually science from the start assumes things as not true. So science has a whole of knowledge commits one error constantly.

LOL, that is funny.

That is why science creates a hypothesis that may or may not be true. Once it is empirically tested if the data does not fit the hypothesis the hypothesis is reworked or abandoned.

I think you are referring to a reluctance to believe in ideas which can not be empirically tested. It is right to be highly skeptical of beliefs and hypothesis that can not be tested because they are very error prone.

Science is not the real world. It's experiments are models of the real world, with as many variables removed as possible. This is in fact why the experimenter denies the existence of God. because the experimenter can not account for the will of such a variable.

Hence why also the tests are duplicated. But there are a 1000 more things in this life that can not be empirically tested.

you and I, and the whole of society, go through this life mostly making educated guesses.

wrong again. There are plenty of scientists who use the scientific method who believe in God. You are mixing opinion with the scientific process. The scientific process does not concern itself with God because there is no way to test whether God exists or even which interpretation of God is more accurate than another, etc.

That does not mean that people only use the scientific process to formulate opinion and belief. You need to go back and understand why the scientific process exists. It exists to minimize type one an type two errors. It is not perfect, but is the best method to eliminate those types of errors.

If you go into areas which can not be empirically tested, such as God that is why there is a million and 1 beliefs about God, many of which can not be both true at the same time. If there was a method to test, say, whether God is vengeful or loving or which degree between the two, then it would be very appropriate to use the scientific method to approach answering that question. It obviously can not be measured, other than people's opinion on the matter.

Even if the scientist believes in God he does not conduct his experiment as if there is a chance God will mess with the results. Experiments are conducted in a way that there is no god.

And must people go through life making educated guesses for day to day living and beliefs. They do not really on the scientific method for 99% of their choices. They have a decision making process that is different then the empirical method.

How people make their decisions has no bearing on whether the scientific method is the best method to increase odds of not committing a type one or type two error. Everyone is wrong in their decisions and judgement each and every day, committing all types of type one and type two errors.

You can feel that bringing God into the quest for evaluating hypothesis as a better method than the scientific method. (I'm not certain how one would do that. Pray? to which God? make a sacrifice? light candles? spin prayer wheels?)

Regardless how you feel you have to admit that the technological achievements and understandings that have been made with the scientific process without God has been rather astounding and will continue onward.

It is important to know though that the scientific process is a process that can only be applied to things which can be validated. It ignores the areas which can not be validated because they can not be validated, not because it is making a judgement.

In other words science is benign to God. It will not make a judgement for or against God. On the other side of the coin it is the reasoning and justifications of people's Gods that has run counter to science, thus why over the history of mankind it has been religion that has changed and not the scientific process.

At 5/16/2014 6:03:49 AM, slo1 wrote:Scientific versus unscientific is purely dealing with the method of discovery. I thing when one uses unscientific in terms of a discovery there is an implied greater risk of an error.

When it comes to truth there are four states.

1. What is believed to be true is true.2. What is believed to be untrue is untrue.3. What is believed to be true is untrue.4. What is believed to be untrue is true.

3 and 4 are the type one and type two errors. When we say that something is scientific it goes through certain rigors to minimize the risk of type one and type two errors.

Of it is not perfect, but when searching for truths, while it is not the only method to uncover truths, but it is the best method to minimize the errors mentioned above.

So again while a discovery can be made with unscientific processes, it is generally a higher risk to be a type one or type two error.

Actually science from the start assumes things as not true. So science has a whole of knowledge commits one error constantly.

LOL, that is funny.

That is why science creates a hypothesis that may or may not be true. Once it is empirically tested if the data does not fit the hypothesis the hypothesis is reworked or abandoned.

I think you are referring to a reluctance to believe in ideas which can not be empirically tested. It is right to be highly skeptical of beliefs and hypothesis that can not be tested because they are very error prone.

Science is not the real world. It's experiments are models of the real world, with as many variables removed as possible. This is in fact why the experimenter denies the existence of God. because the experimenter can not account for the will of such a variable.

Hence why also the tests are duplicated. But there are a 1000 more things in this life that can not be empirically tested.

you and I, and the whole of society, go through this life mostly making educated guesses.

wrong again. There are plenty of scientists who use the scientific method who believe in God. You are mixing opinion with the scientific process. The scientific process does not concern itself with God because there is no way to test whether God exists or even which interpretation of God is more accurate than another, etc.

That does not mean that people only use the scientific process to formulate opinion and belief. You need to go back and understand why the scientific process exists. It exists to minimize type one an type two errors. It is not perfect, but is the best method to eliminate those types of errors.

If you go into areas which can not be empirically tested, such as God that is why there is a million and 1 beliefs about God, many of which can not be both true at the same time. If there was a method to test, say, whether God is vengeful or loving or which degree between the two, then it would be very appropriate to use the scientific method to approach answering that question. It obviously can not be measured, other than people's opinion on the matter.

Even if the scientist believes in God he does not conduct his experiment as if there is a chance God will mess with the results. Experiments are conducted in a way that there is no god.

And must people go through life making educated guesses for day to day living and beliefs. They do not really on the scientific method for 99% of their choices. They have a decision making process that is different then the empirical method.

How people make their decisions has no bearing on whether the scientific method is the best method to increase odds of not committing a type one or type two error. Everyone is wrong in their decisions and judgement each and every day, committing all types of type one and type two errors.

And in the last 100 years science has made less mistakes then other inductive methods? Prove this statement just for the last 100 years. 1 lifetime.

You can feel that bringing God into the quest for evaluating hypothesis as a better method than the scientific method. (I'm not certain how one would do that. Pray? to which God? make a sacrifice? light candles? spin prayer wheels?)

I'm making no such claim. I'm stating a fact that experiments begin with a presupposition that there is no non-physical intelligence that can effect an experiment's results.

Regardless how you feel you have to admit that the technological achievements and understandings that have been made with the scientific process without God has been rather astounding and will continue onward.

Really, because most everything that has expanded our knowledge has come from people that accept the existence of God. They had the mentality that seeking god meant studying the way god did things, and how.

It is important to know though that the scientific process is a process that can only be applied to things which can be validated. It ignores the areas which can not be validated because they can not be validated, not because it is making a judgement.

Really so everything in theoretical physics can be validated? So the papers on what happens behind the event horizon of a black hole are all peer reviewed and can be validated?

In other words science is benign to God. It will not make a judgement for or against God. On the other side of the coin it is the reasoning and justifications of people's Gods that has run counter to science, thus why over the history of mankind it has been religion that has changed and not the scientific process.

Really, The scientific process hasn't changed? What we have today is mostly Cartesian dualism influenced process. The method you are taught today is a pragmatic method originating in 1877.

There are a couple of different ways to knowledge. Science, like others, have changed with the times to survive. Your statement is clearly historically false. Science has changed like anything else still surviving.

At 5/16/2014 6:03:49 AM, slo1 wrote:Scientific versus unscientific is purely dealing with the method of discovery. I thing when one uses unscientific in terms of a discovery there is an implied greater risk of an error.

When it comes to truth there are four states.

1. What is believed to be true is true.2. What is believed to be untrue is untrue.3. What is believed to be true is untrue.4. What is believed to be untrue is true.

3 and 4 are the type one and type two errors. When we say that something is scientific it goes through certain rigors to minimize the risk of type one and type two errors.

Of it is not perfect, but when searching for truths, while it is not the only method to uncover truths, but it is the best method to minimize the errors mentioned above.

So again while a discovery can be made with unscientific processes, it is generally a higher risk to be a type one or type two error.

Actually science from the start assumes things as not true. So science has a whole of knowledge commits one error constantly.

LOL, that is funny.

That is why science creates a hypothesis that may or may not be true. Once it is empirically tested if the data does not fit the hypothesis the hypothesis is reworked or abandoned.

I think you are referring to a reluctance to believe in ideas which can not be empirically tested. It is right to be highly skeptical of beliefs and hypothesis that can not be tested because they are very error prone.

Science is not the real world. It's experiments are models of the real world, with as many variables removed as possible. This is in fact why the experimenter denies the existence of God. because the experimenter can not account for the will of such a variable.

Hence why also the tests are duplicated. But there are a 1000 more things in this life that can not be empirically tested.

you and I, and the whole of society, go through this life mostly making educated guesses.

wrong again. There are plenty of scientists who use the scientific method who believe in God. You are mixing opinion with the scientific process. The scientific process does not concern itself with God because there is no way to test whether God exists or even which interpretation of God is more accurate than another, etc.

That does not mean that people only use the scientific process to formulate opinion and belief. You need to go back and understand why the scientific process exists. It exists to minimize type one an type two errors. It is not perfect, but is the best method to eliminate those types of errors.

If you go into areas which can not be empirically tested, such as God that is why there is a million and 1 beliefs about God, many of which can not be both true at the same time. If there was a method to test, say, whether God is vengeful or loving or which degree between the two, then it would be very appropriate to use the scientific method to approach answering that question. It obviously can not be measured, other than people's opinion on the matter.

Even if the scientist believes in God he does not conduct his experiment as if there is a chance God will mess with the results. Experiments are conducted in a way that there is no god.

And must people go through life making educated guesses for day to day living and beliefs. They do not really on the scientific method for 99% of their choices. They have a decision making process that is different then the empirical method.

How people make their decisions has no bearing on whether the scientific method is the best method to increase odds of not committing a type one or type two error. Everyone is wrong in their decisions and judgement each and every day, committing all types of type one and type two errors.

And in the last 100 years science has made less mistakes then other inductive methods? Prove this statement just for the last 100 years. 1 lifetime.

You can feel that bringing God into the quest for evaluating hypothesis as a better method than the scientific method. (I'm not certain how one would do that. Pray? to which God? make a sacrifice? light candles? spin prayer wheels?)

I'm making no such claim. I'm stating a fact that experiments begin with a presupposition that there is no non-physical intelligence that can effect an experiment's results.

Regardless how you feel you have to admit that the technological achievements and understandings that have been made with the scientific process without God has been rather astounding and will continue onward.

Really, because most everything that has expanded our knowledge has come from people that accept the existence of God. They had the mentality that seeking god meant studying the way god did things, and how.

It is important to know though that the scientific process is a process that can only be applied to things which can be validated. It ignores the areas which can not be validated because they can not be validated, not because it is making a judgement.

Really so everything in theoretical physics can be validated? So the papers on what happens behind the event horizon of a black hole are all peer reviewed and can be validated?

In other words science is benign to God. It will not make a judgement for or against God. On the other side of the coin it is the reasoning and justifications of people's Gods that has run counter to science, thus why over the history of mankind it has been religion that has changed and not the scientific process.

Really, The scientific process hasn't changed? What we have today is mostly Cartesian dualism influenced process. The method you are taught today is a pragmatic method originating in 1877.

There are a couple of different ways to knowledge. Science, like others, have changed with the times to survive. Your statement is clearly historically false. Science has changed like anything else still surviving.

Of course it has changed specifically as math was developed to allow more advanced descriptions of nature. Also, more complex statistics to better evaluate risk of making a type 1 or type 2 error. You will notice the changes in the scientific process over time were geared towards reducing risk of committing an error.

Regardless of that sidetrack discussion, you have yet to describe a better method than the scientific process to eliminate the odds of committing a type 1 or type 2 error with an opinion or belief.

At 5/16/2014 6:03:49 AM, slo1 wrote:Scientific versus unscientific is purely dealing with the method of discovery. I thing when one uses unscientific in terms of a discovery there is an implied greater risk of an error.

When it comes to truth there are four states.

1. What is believed to be true is true.2. What is believed to be untrue is untrue.3. What is believed to be true is untrue.4. What is believed to be untrue is true.

3 and 4 are the type one and type two errors. When we say that something is scientific it goes through certain rigors to minimize the risk of type one and type two errors.

Of it is not perfect, but when searching for truths, while it is not the only method to uncover truths, but it is the best method to minimize the errors mentioned above.

So again while a discovery can be made with unscientific processes, it is generally a higher risk to be a type one or type two error.

Actually science from the start assumes things as not true. So science has a whole of knowledge commits one error constantly.

LOL, that is funny.

That is why science creates a hypothesis that may or may not be true. Once it is empirically tested if the data does not fit the hypothesis the hypothesis is reworked or abandoned.

I think you are referring to a reluctance to believe in ideas which can not be empirically tested. It is right to be highly skeptical of beliefs and hypothesis that can not be tested because they are very error prone.

Science is not the real world. It's experiments are models of the real world, with as many variables removed as possible. This is in fact why the experimenter denies the existence of God. because the experimenter can not account for the will of such a variable.

Hence why also the tests are duplicated. But there are a 1000 more things in this life that can not be empirically tested.

you and I, and the whole of society, go through this life mostly making educated guesses.

wrong again. There are plenty of scientists who use the scientific method who believe in God. You are mixing opinion with the scientific process. The scientific process does not concern itself with God because there is no way to test whether God exists or even which interpretation of God is more accurate than another, etc.

That does not mean that people only use the scientific process to formulate opinion and belief. You need to go back and understand why the scientific process exists. It exists to minimize type one an type two errors. It is not perfect, but is the best method to eliminate those types of errors.

If you go into areas which can not be empirically tested, such as God that is why there is a million and 1 beliefs about God, many of which can not be both true at the same time. If there was a method to test, say, whether God is vengeful or loving or which degree between the two, then it would be very appropriate to use the scientific method to approach answering that question. It obviously can not be measured, other than people's opinion on the matter.

Even if the scientist believes in God he does not conduct his experiment as if there is a chance God will mess with the results. Experiments are conducted in a way that there is no god.

And must people go through life making educated guesses for day to day living and beliefs. They do not really on the scientific method for 99% of their choices. They have a decision making process that is different then the empirical method.

How people make their decisions has no bearing on whether the scientific method is the best method to increase odds of not committing a type one or type two error. Everyone is wrong in their decisions and judgement each and every day, committing all types of type one and type two errors.

And in the last 100 years science has made less mistakes then other inductive methods? Prove this statement just for the last 100 years. 1 lifetime.

You can feel that bringing God into the quest for evaluating hypothesis as a better method than the scientific method. (I'm not certain how one would do that. Pray? to which God? make a sacrifice? light candles? spin prayer wheels?)

I'm making no such claim. I'm stating a fact that experiments begin with a presupposition that there is no non-physical intelligence that can effect an experiment's results.

Regardless how you feel you have to admit that the technological achievements and understandings that have been made with the scientific process without God has been rather astounding and will continue onward.

Really, because most everything that has expanded our knowledge has come from people that accept the existence of God. They had the mentality that seeking god meant studying the way god did things, and how.

It is important to know though that the scientific process is a process that can only be applied to things which can be validated. It ignores the areas which can not be validated because they can not be validated, not because it is making a judgement.

Really so everything in theoretical physics can be validated? So the papers on what happens behind the event horizon of a black hole are all peer reviewed and can be validated?

In other words science is benign to God. It will not make a judgement for or against God. On the other side of the coin it is the reasoning and justifications of people's Gods that has run counter to science, thus why over the history of mankind it has been religion that has changed and not the scientific process.

Really, The scientific process hasn't changed? What we have today is mostly Cartesian dualism influenced process. The method you are taught today is a pragmatic method originating in 1877.

There are a couple of different ways to knowledge. Science, like others, have changed with the times to survive. Your statement is clearly historically false. Science has changed like anything else still surviving.

Of course it has changed specifically as math was developed to allow more advanced descriptions of nature. Also, more complex statistics to better evaluate risk of making a type 1 or type 2 error. You will notice the changes in the scientific process over time were geared towards reducing risk of committing an error.

Regardless of that sidetrack discussion, you have yet to describe a better method than the scientific process to eliminate the odds of committing a type 1 or type 2 error with an opinion or belief.

You can not validate this claim: "scientific method is the most reliable method compared to other methods".

Because you would have to know the actual truth of things to assess. If there are 2 methods and the Scientific Method is saying A is true. And the Abductive method is saying A is false. how do you know which is a true claim? You bias science.

In other words science is benign to God. It will not make a judgement for or against God. On the other side of the coin it is the reasoning and justifications of people's Gods that has run counter to science, thus why over the history of mankind it has been religion that has changed and not the scientific process.

Really, The scientific process hasn't changed? What we have today is mostly Cartesian dualism influenced process. The method you are taught today is a pragmatic method originating in 1877.

There are a couple of different ways to knowledge. Science, like others, have changed with the times to survive. Your statement is clearly historically false. Science has changed like anything else still surviving.

Of course it has changed specifically as math was developed to allow more advanced descriptions of nature. Also, more complex statistics to better evaluate risk of making a type 1 or type 2 error. You will notice the changes in the scientific process over time were geared towards reducing risk of committing an error.

Regardless of that sidetrack discussion, you have yet to describe a better method than the scientific process to eliminate the odds of committing a type 1 or type 2 error with an opinion or belief.

You can not validate this claim: "scientific method is the most reliable method compared to other methods".

I can measure how many advances have been a result of the scientific methods and compare it to how many advances have been the result of non-scientific methods and use an inductive or abductive reasoning to conclude the statement is justified.

................Or I guess I could have 10000 people pray to God on that question and use the collective answers to come to a conclusion.

Because you would have to know the actual truth of things to assess. If there are 2 methods and the Scientific Method is saying A is true. And the Abductive method is saying A is false. how do you know which is a

That is why science only deals itself with things it may have the possibility of determining the truth and ignores the rest. If I am looking for the truth behind the cause of Alzheimer, it is the best approach to reach the truth. If I am looking for the truth of God, it is not suitable.

Also to your point the scientific method does not exclude the different types of reasoning especially when formulating a hypothesis. The rigor come from evaluating the hypothesis and trying to disprove it.

In other words science is benign to God. It will not make a judgement for or against God. On the other side of the coin it is the reasoning and justifications of people's Gods that has run counter to science, thus why over the history of mankind it has been religion that has changed and not the scientific process.

Really, The scientific process hasn't changed? What we have today is mostly Cartesian dualism influenced process. The method you are taught today is a pragmatic method originating in 1877.

There are a couple of different ways to knowledge. Science, like others, have changed with the times to survive. Your statement is clearly historically false. Science has changed like anything else still surviving.

Of course it has changed specifically as math was developed to allow more advanced descriptions of nature. Also, more complex statistics to better evaluate risk of making a type 1 or type 2 error. You will notice the changes in the scientific process over time were geared towards reducing risk of committing an error.

Regardless of that sidetrack discussion, you have yet to describe a better method than the scientific process to eliminate the odds of committing a type 1 or type 2 error with an opinion or belief.

You can not validate this claim: "scientific method is the most reliable method compared to other methods".

I can measure how many advances have been a result of the scientific methods and compare it to how many advances have been the result of non-scientific methods and use an inductive or abductive reasoning to conclude the statement is justified.

................Or I guess I could have 10000 people pray to God on that question and use the collective answers to come to a conclusion.

Because you would have to know the actual truth of things to assess. If there are 2 methods and the Scientific Method is saying A is true. And the Abductive method is saying A is false. how do you know which is a

That is why science only deals itself with things it may have the possibility of determining the truth and ignores the rest. If I am looking for the truth behind the cause of Alzheimer, it is the best approach to reach the truth. If I am looking for the truth of God, it is not suitable.

Also to your point the scientific method does not exclude the different types of reasoning especially when formulating a hypothesis. The rigor come from evaluating the hypothesis and trying to disprove it.

You said "thus why over the history of mankind it has been religion that has changed and not the scientific process."

I contended and you changed your position to:

"You will notice the changes in the scientific process over time were geared towards reducing risk of committing an error"

I've also shown that everyday experience is not the scientific method.

You can not validate this claim: "scientific method is the most reliable method compared to other methods". So you move the goal post by claiming:

That is why science only deals itself with things it may have the possibility of determining the truth and ignores the rest.

Quite simply the abductive reasoning answers more questions and brings more people to more valid claims and aids in more decisions then the empirical method.

All you have done is now admit that scientific method is not adequate to answer all questions. And given that science, as a body have knowledge, has been proven wrong with advancing time.

You hold to your claims by moving the goal post. You assume it is the most reliable method though you can not validate this with the scientific method.

At 5/12/2014 10:44:40 PM, medic0506 wrote:Is it possible for an explanation to be both true and unscientific, at the same time??

I recently was in a discussion with someone about the meaning of science. He held the position that science can be divorced from both knowledge and truth. He held that the scientific position is the one that can make predictions and further our understanding of the universe.

The obvious response to that position would seem to be that if his science can be divorced from both truth and knowledge, then it is of no value, it is meaningless. Of what value is an explanation, or understanding about the universe, if that understanding has no truth value. I understand and agree that science can't deal in "absolute truths", it has to remain open to evidence, but to say that it can be divorced from both knowledge and truth is nonsensical.

Has science evolved to a point where it is philosophically possible for a true answer to be considered unscientific??

If youre talking about truth in the context of Absolute truth, something that we know with absolute certainty, then yes, science is divorced from that, because everything in science is tentative on evidence, and can be disproved/dismissed with evidence.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that the logical extension of what you're saying here is that origins is ultimately going to have to be outside the scope of materialistic science.

A "law" of nature can't exist until after nature itself has come into existence, so how can any law be formulated, to explain the origin of the universe, which is, by definition, "natural"??

That assumes that nature came into existence. There are two possible escapes from that. The obvious one is that nature always existed, which a belief of a number of religions as well as being a scientific possibility. Anything that can be expressed mathematically is possible. The other escape involves the nature of time. "Begin" is an event in one-dimensional time. If, as Hawking suggests, time is two-dimensional then "begin" only has a local meaning and not a overarching meaning. The laws of nature are not subject to beginning or not beginning, they are at a level above that.

I don't know if the truth will ever be proved. It may well be that it's beyond humans to understand. However, says it cannot possibly be resolved by science assumes too much.

Anyone can offer an opinion as to whether the criteria has been met, and like most questions there is no Grand Arbiter who pronounces truth.

I agree there is no Grand Arbiter in science, but empiricism and objectivity is suppose to act as a stand-in. We would both probably agree that empiricism and objectivity are even better than having a Grand Arbiter because, in such a system, nothing is ever based solely on one person's judgment. That is why science works so well and there is rarely dispute, that can't be resolved, when science sticks to empirical, objective, testable, and falsifiable ideas and principles. It's when we get into hypothetical and theoretical "science", that we run into problems.

I agree that science works well because it depends upon endless consideration of evidence. Science has to have hypotheses to attempt to confirm, or there would never be progress.

I think the problem is that people insist upon knowing things like the origins of the universe immediately, and lacking a scientific explanation they will believe whatever they want to belief. Unknown things should just be left unknown until they are resolved. A tenet of Buddhism is that questions of the existence of God should not even be considered because doing so wastes time that could be spent of pressing issues.

I think, from a philosophical standpoint, if you're going to say that truth can be unscientific then that has to apply equally to all possible truths, otherwise science is nothing more than a matter of opinion.

The thing is though, once you know that something is true, as in the case of ID, you can work with that knowledge to know how to interpret the data and be confident about it, as you work your way up.

ID makes no predictions. An ID scientist wrote a book giving a list of things that evolution could not possibly explain, like the development of the rotary joint in the flagella. By the time the book got in print, plausible explanations had been found for at least a third of the things though impossible to explain. DNA analysis revealed where many features came from. It's not possible to be confident of anything that ID claims. However, until absolutely everything is explained, it will be possible to attribute the unexplained to magical intervention. ID therefore cannot be disproved.

I'm not defending string theory here but I guess the same principle would apply. Some people say that YEC makes no testable predictions. I disagree, but even if they were right, it has no effect on its truth value.

Yes, that's fair. With no predictive power it is not science and not useful, but it may please people to believe it.

With magic though, we know that it's an illusion and there are humans who do indeed know how the act was performed, so an omnipotent Creator interacting with His creation isn't magic. From our perspective, as observers of natural laws and phenomena, a miracle appears to be a suspension of natural laws, but it's really God revealing some aspect of His nature.

It's semantics. Magicians perform "magic tricks" which are not real magic. Real magic is something done unpredictably and without regard to laws of nature. God performs real magic, in defiance of natural laws that apply in the ordinary world.god is not in any way bound by gravity, Newton's Laws, or conservation of energy.

Houdini always announced that he was just doing tricks. Many people at the time thought he was just saying that to cover up his ability to do real magic. People understand the difference between illusions and real magic even if they are not too good at telling which is which.

At 5/18/2014 12:20:26 PM, RoyLatham wrote:Anything that can be expressed mathematically is possible.

That is obviously not true. There is a mathematical expression for impossible events: P(E)=0.It is possible to mathematically express how magnets would repel metal, yet it is impossible.Please rephrase.

Real magic is something done unpredictably and without regard to laws of nature. God performs real magic, in defiance of natural laws that apply in the ordinary world.

That assumes God has characteristics as you desire.What if Earth is actually a simulation, Matrix-style. It could be a digital copy of the real world, and could have been programmed to mirror the "real" world six days ago. It would be exactly as we can measure it, see it, experience it. It would contain copies of dinosaur bones only six days old, while all our instruments would say they are ancient. And the creator of this world could be an overweight programmer in the real world, bound to all laws of physics we find here, only in his own world.Your argumentation is filled with unprovable inductions.

god is not in any way bound by gravity, Newton's Laws, or conservation of energy.

That is your invalid induction alone, see above.

I'm sorry to have disturbed. I was repeatedly told you could possibly be a challenge for me to debate on this site. I could not resist checking. My bad.